N.K Sodhi, J. (Oral):— Having heard counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders, we are of the view that the liability of the petitioner has been fastened primarily on the basis of an audit objection. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence available on the record except the audit-note and that the petitioner could not be held liable to pay the amount only on the basis of that note. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 contends that both the parties had led their evidence before the Arbitrator and it is not only the audit-note but the records from the Bank were also before the Arbitrator when the liability of the petitioner was fixed. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary reveals that the liability of the petitioner has been fastened merely on the basis of the audit-note. This by itself is not enough to hold him responsible. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order is not sustainable.
2. Consequently, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 16.2.1995 and 12.8.1997 and remand the case to the Arbitrator for a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties before him. Parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ajnala on September 20, 1999.
3. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.
Petition allowed.